Slashdot Mirror
'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter (theoutline.com)
From an article on The Outline: Since 2009, Twitter has added a blue checkmark symbol to certain accounts that have been deemed "verified," which means "that an account of public interest is authentic," according to Twitter. For some, the verified distinction is coveted. For others, it's become a dirty word. "Verifieds" or "blue checks" are the elite, the establishment. Since many members of the media are verified, they have also become associated, for some, with the perceived liberal bias of the fourth estate. Conservatives, alt-righters, and Donald Trump fans have noticed that when Trump tweets, there is invariably a flood of "blue check liberals" responding in a negative way. There is also the perception that Twitter, a California company, is biased toward liberals. Also, according to Twitter, there are now about 250,000 people who're verified on the site, some of which are for unknown reasons.
Not widely. I've never heard of this.
Dark Reflection
tends to have a liberal bias.
Get over it.
There is also the perception that Twitter, a California company, is biased toward liberals.
The only people twitter is biased towards are the Trolls which form the main stay of it's business
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
The biases of Twitter can be quite easily seen by looking at the "Safety Council", tasked with keeping Twitter free of undesireables.
( https://about.twitter.com/safe... )
Furthermore, it is quite telling that Twitter punished notorious troll and agitator Milo Yiannopoulos by removing his verified tag. Why would they do that if the tag was only there to assert that the account was in fact verified as belonging to the real Milo Yiannopoulos?
It does look elitist. I'm not so sure that it's a nefarious scheme so much as a by-product of a sorting algorithm. It would be nice to be able to easily sort those responses. When showing replies to a Tweet, Twitter prioritizes the verified accounts, as they are typically more visible (more followers see and like their replies). We see them first, even if we have no clue who the person is. For high profile accounts, like the president, there is bound to be thousands of responses. If even a small percentage of those are "blue checks", they tend to drown out the other responses. Their voice gets a priority. It can be pretty tiring, especially when the first few people responding have multiple replies. They appear to be "hogging" the comments.
The verified accounts on Twitter should be held to a higher standard.
Why are they keeping that clown on twitter? We have plenty of much better comedians on twitter.
Most journalists are registered Democrats. And I've lived long enough to see how they react and write articles depending on who is in the white house. Why would this surprise anyone? With the dissolution of many schools of journalism at universities across the nation, most who have been educated in the last decade are English or Speech Comm majors whose departments have a definite liberal bias.
Sorry it's not only perceived but it's quite real. Why not just admit it and stop pretending you're unbiased?
@realDonaldTrump is a blue check. What more do you need?
So what you're saying, is that conservatives who come from other social media sites to post on twitter, they're....
undocumented immigrants to twitter?
Interesting...
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
and so do all of you. this site used to be interesting and cool to post on 10 years ago.....
... low numbers on Slashdot are not to be trusted.
I first signed on to Twitter back in 2008 and kept in touch with a group of writers for five years or so. It fell off my radar since then because Real Life(tm) intruded and I stopped writing. This year I looked at Twitter and found a Facebook cesspool. I still post announcements on Twitter but there's no community.
I thought Republicans were the ones who wanted to strenuously check everyone's ID. Um.. to avoid fraud!
(And also to keep negroes from tweeting.)
Getting really tired of the right dismissing anything that disagrees with their narrative.
If nothing more than correlation is enough to "prove" institutional racism, then it's enough to also prove bias. It's talking out of both sides of your mouth to say, "The fact that blacks are incarcerated at higher rates than whites is proof of racial bias in the justice system, but the fact that 'liberals' are more likely to have blue checks on Twitter is not evidence of a political bias." Either correlation is enough to show bias, or it's not.
Liberals, as a separate and distinct species from those on the left in general, have some major issues with reality. They want double standards wherever required to maintain their belief system, which is why you find them often engaged in doublethink. That's not to say there isn't the same phenomenon on the right, but they're not the dominant political force at the moment. When they are, we get attempts to ban pornography, sodomy, etc.
Stop participating in confused people's erroneous perceptions. This one embodies a string of fallacies and rational people have no obligation but to pity their confusion. Amplifying their misperceptions is a disservice to everybody involved.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I said everything in the Subject. Thank for your attention.
Being "verified" is only derogatory from the perspective of users who believe in alternative facts. They are far from a majority, even if they are exceptionally loud.
Also, how is this newsworthy? People have unconventional opinions, and for every norm there is a small population that opposes it.
Wake me up if these people ever do anything interesting with this attitude. Something interesting means "more than dismissive or disprespectful attitudes"---those are a dime a dozen on the internet.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
They drank the social justice kool-aid a while back. And that group of "the left" has managed to steal the "liberal" label somehow.
And no, I'm not an alt-right nutter. No, I didn't vote for Trump. No, I don't think Brexit is great. No, I don't think Obama was evil incarnate. My introduction to SJWs was when they destroyed what was a reasonably functioning atheist community with their religion.
April Fool's Day: looks like Slashdot has finally gone global.
Sadly, this may be the most intelligent post regarding this story.
Pilots and Doctors aren't pushing political policies across the country regardless of whether the majority in those areas want them or not.
It's as simple as that. Liberals tend more toward the communal, social, human-species oriented mentality, like multicellular life forms, while conservatives are fearcely individualistic, like single cell organisms. Liberals are simply the next phase of human evolution, while the primitive cave-man conservatives cling desperately to the old ways, fighting tooth and nail with desperation to avoid their inescapable faith of going the way of the dinosaurs.
Before you accuse me of trolling, ask yourself this: which are the less educated ? Liberals or conservatives ? Where do you find the highest proportion of scientists, engeeniers, scholars ?
On the other hand, in which group do you find the most anti-vaxxers, creationists, flat-earthers, pizzagate-believers, moon-landing-denyiers, and other conspiracy theorists ? All conservatives, of course.
Draw your own conclusions.
I mean, come on, who would want to DRINK POO? Waiting. Waiting. Ah, yes, there is only one answer. Martin Espinoza is a RETARD.
For some reason, this comment may or may not be modded down by some racist that disagrees with me.
Because anyone who isn't a liberal is a Nazi.
Welcome to the rigid, inflexible monoculture of contemporary liberalism.
This is why you lost. And this is why you will lose again.
Because conservatives are well-known as pragmatic and open-minded people.
Is the criteria for gaining a verified status published somewhere?
Sorry, but it's far more than just a fucking *perception* of bias. I didn't vote for Trump. I'm not a republican or a conservative nor am I religious. It is pretty fucking clear based on the people they target and remove and why versus the people and comments they allow (even after being reported) that they are *specifically* biased. Even look at who makes up their trust and safety board, why don't you?
that the mentally disturbed fools on the right don't like anything that interferes with their onslaught of fake news. Sadly for them, reality has a liberal bias. That in a nut shell is why they retreat to fake reality, more to their liking.
The only dr that I know personally, changed from D to R after the healthcare act.
In my experience, yes. It's typically liberals who act the way your sarcastic tone implied conservatives do. Have you watched MSNBC since the election? What am I saying, no one watches MSNBC!
Strangely "conservatives" have become far more difficult to tolerate, even for actual conservatives. It's a very strange world they live in, and it bears very little resemblance to reality.
The alt-right have made up a new insult? STOP THE PRESSES!
I'm still confused as to why both political sides decided "the elites" needed to be thrown out. We knew they weren't great, but they were a known, sane quantity. Corruption charges were fairly boring or obviously nonsense. The "outsider" in office now on the other hand seems to do things without rhyme or reason. "Cut funding for cancer research and build a wall that will be less effective than the great wall of China!" And the accusations of corruption are "He's running the government regulating his own businesses he's still running" are pretty plainly obvious.
Now we've decided that the twitter elites are a problem? Not the anonymous eggs harassing sane people and putting up frog memes that don't make sense?
I enjoy making fun of alt-nazis as much as anyone else, but lets actually make fun of them. Pretending they have valid opinions is dangerous.
Most pilots and doctors aren't condescending idiots unlike "experts". We tend to not value idiots who talk like you.
If their spelling is correct, you must reject
Don't be a tool of the elites!
Because conservatives are well-known as pragmatic and open-minded people.
They're not the ones on university campuses or society trying to shut down speech, engaging in no-platforming, violently assaulting people for having different opinions, pushing safe spaces, engaging in racism like progressives are. Or have you failed to miss how much identity politics, anti-white bullshit gets pushed out by people who claim to be "moral arbiters" and standing up for minorities?
So yep, conservatives do seem to be the pragmatic and open-minded ones these days.
Om, nomnomnom...
In the post-truth world, being an Anonymous Coward is a badge of honor.
Basically no greater "privilege" than an OV cert from a CA. It says you, the controller of the resource, are who you claim to be, no more, no less.
Haters gonna hate.
The right has fallen prey to the brainwashing by Fox News. Tell a lie enough times and people believe it. Tell a lie with confidence and authority, and they believe it. With 98% of talk radio being right-wing, you can't hardly get away from the onslaught.
The funny thing about the ACA, and why they're having such a hard time coming up with something better, is that it was a good republican plan to begin with. It's only because it has Obama's name on it that makes it so distasteful to them.
Oddly Democrats/libtards supported slavery. Democrats has a long history of self-serving agenda that only benefits the elite. How's it that Clinton's went from broke in 2000 to buying a 4M home in NY? Corruption. Taking money from govt you Libtards despise. Taking money from people who do not support women's rights. Taking money from people who kill gays. You Libtards are hypocrites.
I'm not completely sure that this isn't a troll, but I'll answer up as if it isn't. It would have been better if it wasn't an Anonymous Coward posting with no way to establish the context from which the author has spoken...
This illustrates a big part of the problem. A belief that a particular political viewpoint is so correct, and another so wrong, that merely expressing views associated with the latter automatically makes one wrong.
It may be the case that loonies are more likely to identify with a conservative, individualistic political ideology more so than a group-think government-take-care-of-me political philosophy, and since loonies tend to be outspoken and get attention, those loonies might be seen as the face of that political philosophy. But that appearance doesn't make it so.
The current trend of folks wearing a liberal banner shutting down conversations about significant issues simply because the alternate viewpoint from theirs MUST be wrong because it's not their viewpoint is troubling to me. It's the political equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, and vocalizing "nyahh nyah nyah" as loud as one can. Donald Trump won the election because a significant number of people in the US voted for him. Wouldn't it make sense to try and understand WHY people voted for him rather than just shouting "He's not MY president" and suggesting that the political process in the United States has somehow gone off the rails because your candidate didn't get elected? It doesn't seem like very evolved behavior to me.
People believe all sorts of things, and they believe them for all sorts of reasons. Dismissing others beliefs because they don't line up with the beliefs that you hold dear isn't a sign of intelligence; it's a sign of close-mindedness. From my viewpoint, it seems like a lot of liberals are the kind of people who like living in a denser, urban environment, while a lot of conservatives are people who like living in a less-crowded, non-urban environment. Perhaps this acts as a filter for political beliefs. Perhaps it's possible that liberal beliefs work well in an urban environment, while conservative beliefs work well outside of that environment. I currently live in a US state that has a tradition of having individualistic citizens, yet has developed significant urban populations in some parts. The political demographics seem to support the notion that urban-dwellers are more liberal, while non-urban dwellers are more conservative. Does this mean that the future of the human race is to live in dense urban environments with liberal politics? I hope not, because that isn't an environment that I would like to live in, and one that I have specifically chosen NOT to live in. Is my choice invalid? Am I broken or defective because I don't want to live that way, or is it a valid choice of mine to not live that way?
I believe many things and have rejected belief in many others. I've been called a Skeptic before I was aware that it was a thing because I believe in evidence-based reasoning. I was raised in a northeastern US state as a southern baptist, but threw away the religious beliefs I was taught when I went to college and found a better explanation with more evidence. I've spent a lot of my professional career using knowledge and reason to to separate fact from fiction, to understand why things have occurred, and what is most likely to make things work better in the future. In my mind, THAT is a more evolved human. The use of reason, thinking based on evidence, and considering all of the data, not just the data that favors what I would like to be true.
As soon as one starts labeling things, including people, one ceases to be able to truly understand them. Labels are useful abstractions, and its human to use them, but some of the most interesting discoveries come from peering past the labels to truly see.
I would like to see some political dialogs that don't assume right and wrong based on party membership, I would like to see political dialogs that don't reject other's beliefs simply because they are counter to one's own. And for the sake of the FSM, I would really like to see an end to self-appointed moral superiority.
"My ignorance is as valid as your knowledge."
Buzzing the information Superhighway at Warp speed
The alt-Right seeing Twitter verification as derogatory reminds me of the way the 20th century hard-core Communists used to see using a toothbrush or wearing glasses as a evidence that you are an elitist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can anyone explain why we should give a shit that there are idiots on twitter who think "verified" is derogatory?
Milo is a troll because of his message, or because of how it's delivered? People on the right finally figured out that no matter how they say things, the progressive left will attack. Milo, and to a large extent President Trump have figured out that being "politically correct" has never worked. The target is constantly moving, and only favors the progressive left. The progressive left is now beginning to eat as much as they dish out, and they don't like it.
We hear the same claims about Ann Coulter, Ben Shaprio, Steven Crowder, Mark Levin, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, and I could go on and on and on. The progressive left (and it's media monopoly) labels anything people on the right do as racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, transphobic, misogynistic, anti Hispanic, etc... They constantly cherry pick bits and pieces of content to argue with. They similarly cherry pick for their own narratives and continue to get caught.
The successful answer has been not to "play nice" but to throw things back in a way that displays the hypocrisy and dirty tricks in full view.
So far, Generation Z is turning out to be one of the most conservative generations in a long time. The progressives are in for a rough time.
Back on point, as GP stated the "Verified" has become synonymous with "Insider" or "Elitist". Twitter is losing the war, as is Youtube and Facebook. Censorship is never the answer, yet these massive institutions continue to travel that route.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The funny thing is that by pushing only negative comments to the top of every Trump tweet they are, if anything, solidifying his support.
This, sir, is a breath of fresh air on this otherwise gloomy and suffocating forum.
Twitter?
Requiem for the American Dream
This site does tend to have a conservative bent to it.
Because nothing says fake news like being willing to confirm you're a real person? You're an idiot.
So if a Trump tweet gets negative responses that include Blue Check marked accounts, people devalue those responses in some way? Just another way to bury one's head in the sand and prove to themselves that everyone else is wrong.
I do so love people who think their side's shit doesnt smell
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter... for rightards."
You know... Like liberal, feminist, socialist, immigrant, Muslim, Jew, black, literate, educated... and all other dog whistling insults that rightard cowards are using cause they don't have the balls to say what they really mean.
Sad.
In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy (see also Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy), said:[19][20]
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni99er, ni99er, ni99er."
By 1968, you can't say "ni99er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.
You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that.
But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni99er, ni99er."
-âLee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The so-called "regressive left" is excessively, stupidly tolerant - but that's still not regressive.
It's not a logical, rational definition, based on arguments or proofs of "regression". It's a code.
Regressive Left
The term was coined by British politician Maajid Nawaz as a label for those on the left who would jump at the chance to attack an idea or person for expressing an idea.
Calling any challenge of Islamic beliefs as "Islamaphobia," in particular, is considered part and parcel with regressive lefties.
Agree with the sentiment or not, Nawaz presented his measured argument for the phrase reasonably and soberly.
Naturally, all nuance has since been divorced from the term, and it is now indiscriminately used against any utterance of the left.
Do note the complete "divorce" of the origin and actual meaning of the term from how it is used in this very thread.
Neither you nor the OP even mentioned religion.
It's a code now. And it means different, generalized, things to different people.
You know... like "states' rights", "cutting taxes", "busing", "birth certificates"...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sorry, just wanted to use that term.
They're not the ones on university campuses or society trying to shut down speech
I'm pretty sure Trump et al threatening to sue journalists and trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
I do so love people who think their side's shit doesnt smell
You know what I like? Cookies. But you know what I find amusing? People who pretend that something isn't the case and a particular ideology which proclaimed "we're the ones pushing for free speech" are now the ones censoring. I mean, just look at this picture and tell me what's wrong with it.
I'll give you a hint, those are both pictures taken on the same university campus.
Om, nomnomnom...
Commies, socialists, progtards or antifa - if you see 'em, slap 'em! Let's set a new world record for leftist butt-hurt!
... trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down. Or that he's right when you can find the media is vastly left-wing, votes democrat, reporters are democrats(around 90%) and 95-97% of them in the beltway donate to democrats or are democrats. Or that 90% of what they report is all negative, even when the subject is positive.
It's not like the MSM haven't spent decades delegitimizing themselves to well...everyone. Which is why the trust of the press in most of the west is between 8% and 15% or anything. No, you want to see what trying to shut down speech looks like? Go pay attention to what's happening to youtube right now, and sites like the WSJ, gizmodo, et.al., directly attacking the source of revenue for people because they don't "conform" to their ideology. That's what an attack on free speech looks like.
Om, nomnomnom...
just look at this picture and tell me what's wrong with it.
Sure: half of it's sideways, it's compressed all to fuck, the aspect ratio on the left half has been mangled and the composition on the right panel sucks. Visually it's a total disaster.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Young people are scientifically proven to be more liberal than old people. I can almost guarantee you that there aren't tons of old people using twitter. So based on the age range that is using twitter, then twitter should appear to be more liberal than conservative. A quick google shows the biggest average age group at 25 - 34. If you actually limited that to people actually posting on Twitter, I would bet good money that it is the younger end of the spectrum that is actually using Twitter. Yeah, I'm on Twitter and I'm older. It's just installed on my phone and I hardly ever actually use it. "Old" conservatives I know hardly even know what Twitter is, much less how to use it. Kind of like me with Snapchat. I know exactly what it is. I have never used it.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Trump has violated their standards for bullying and other content for a long time now, yet they won't apply the rules to him and ban him from the platform. That says right there they are addicted to the money his account generates. And they have to protect their money interests.
Probably does, from the alt-right perspective.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down.
Yep. Also this. I'm not defending SJWs or whatever other shenanigans some news organizations are getting into, I just don't pretend like it's only people from one political spectrum that are causing issues.
Well said.
Lost by 2.1 million MORE VOTES
Hey, get some new writers
The old hacks just make you look stupid
your party lives on voter suppression and gerrymanders
Without both, you lose. TWICE in just 16 years!!
Yes they are,
except they keep to their private "Liberty" universities without accreditation, where NO speech is allowed unless it toe the line.
His threats to "Sue people and get lots of money" are indeed efforts to silence critics
Thank you for playing "Stupid". Would you like to try again?
Oddly, more Democrats/Libturds voted for the Voting rights act than Republican'ts. By a lot.
Clinton got rich by beating your sick asses so often his books and speeches became hot demand items.
That old "Marketplace of Ideas" strikes again!
You're both 'tards for defining your world as 2 extremes. Liberalism (e.g.) is a broad idea, and the fact that a very, very small subset of (loud) college "kids" do things in the name of liberalism isn't a reflection on classic liberal values.
Have the guts to call good things good, and bad things bad and not paint yourself all the same color. If you find yourself mysteriously agreeing with ALL or most of the points of your tribe, really take a deep look and see what's motivating you.
Yes, they're not the ones doing shit physically on university campuses. Online, I've never seen "social justice warriors" harass like "men's rights activists." I've never seen any "anti-white bullshit" that stood up as genuinely anti-white after spending 10 seconds reading what was actually going on.
I remember the conservative side also being a lot more angry and violent when we had a democratically elected black man in office. Now that we have an undemocratically elected regressive in office, liberals are evil for being upset?
Jesus...
i have felt butthurt about the verified accounts since day one. know i shouldnt, but i do, as i ponder my existence knowing the service will never even be offered to me to turn down.
Disclaimer: I don't twitter and posting anonymous because I forgot my password again.
From reading other comments and past articles on how Twitter works the verified accounts, with the blue check, are in some fashion verified by Twitter to belong to a 'real person' and so a 'real person' can be tied to any particular tweet from that account. This implies a chain of responsibility, that the real person is willing to be responsible for what they tweet.
Further it seems that Twitter sorts the comments so that verified accounts are seen before unverified accounts. Seems reasonable to me. This means that tweets from real people or people who are willing to be responsible for what they are saying have more value than the responses of people that do not want to be responsible for what they say.
Then the implications are that the people complaining about the verified accounts are just people who want to say things without responsibility or they run twitter bot farms.
When will the idiot Trumpeters realise that reality has a liberal bias?
TheOutline.com, serving quality journalism since December 2016, and which is totally not a propaganda site.
riiiiiiight.
The wayback machine shows this domain for sale for a long time... and it just started serving articles last December.
> Oddly, more Democrats/Libturds voted for the Voting rights act than Republican'ts. By a lot.
The 89th United States Congress, which passed the Voting Rights Act, had:
68 Democrat Senators, of whom 49 voted for it.
32 Republican Senators, of whom 30 voted for it.
This means the mostly powerless Republicans supported it at 94%, while the massive supermajority Democrats supported it at 73%.
The House was similarly partitioned, with a massive Democrat majority (like 295 to 140), and the percentages were similar- 82% Republicans versus 78% Democrats.
So yes, more Democrats than Republicans voted for it. But there were also over twice as many Democrats as Republicans, and by percentage, it was more supported by the few Republicans.
> They're not the ones on university campuses or society trying to shut down speech
Not only are they. They are the majority of such incidents. There just isn't an entire aggrievement movement dedicated to distorting even the most minor incidents into outrage bait. That's because conservative censorship is so everyday that people expect it as the normal course of events.
Here's just one recent example:
Did Legislators Get a Public Radio Reporter Fired?
oh look more bullshit from mashiki
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
By now they should have learned that mod points are a fixed quantity.
While I can never run out of copy/paste.
The so-called "regressive left" is excessively, stupidly tolerant - but that's still not regressive.
It's not a logical, rational definition, based on arguments or proofs of "regression". It's a code.
Regressive Left
The term was coined by British politician Maajid Nawaz as a label for those on the left who would jump at the chance to attack an idea or person for expressing an idea.
Calling any challenge of Islamic beliefs as "Islamaphobia," in particular, is considered part and parcel with regressive lefties.
Agree with the sentiment or not, Nawaz presented his measured argument for the phrase reasonably and soberly.
Naturally, all nuance has since been divorced from the term, and it is now indiscriminately used against any utterance of the left.
Do note the complete "divorce" of the origin and actual meaning of the term from how it is used in this very thread.
Neither you nor the OP even mentioned religion.
It's a code now. And it means different, generalized, things to different people.
You know... like "states' rights", "cutting taxes", "busing", "birth certificates"...
There... as good as new.
While a pathetic poor little snowflake troll cries over wasted mod-points in mom's basement somewhere.
Sad.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Maybe in the alt-universe which conservatives have constructed for themselves you might see that. In the real world nobody says that.
I have two words for you. "Sanctuary" and "City". Yes, they do say that all the damn time, out in the open and in the press/media.
Half truths are lies too. We saw through your political correctness, we see through your half truths too
When caught in a lie, claim your opponent does everything you do. Yeah, I read Rules for Radicals too. Not a good try coward. No ration for you comrade!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This illustrates a big part of the problem. A belief that a particular political viewpoint is so correct, and another so wrong, that merely expressing views associated with the latter automatically makes one wrong.
I don't know about all that.
What I do know is that I listen to talk radio 3-4 hours every day and all of the advertising is scam after scam after scam. Super-foods, gold IRAs, testosterone treatments, herbal supplements, over-priced sheets, etc. Marketers know exactly who their marks are.
I would like to see political dialogs that don't reject other's beliefs simply because they are counter to one's own.
There are some truths we hold to be self-evident. So much of what passes for conservative beliefs are attempts to lawyer around those truths. At what point is it ok to stop respecting such un-american disingenuity?
There are plenty of conservatives that doesn't like the anti-science, far-right pleasing turn of the republican party. Trying to paint everyone as being either "left" (the US version - center for most of the world) or right (the US version, in most of the world those that far right generally jump a bit more to extreme right) is not factual, not helping people realize that most "left" persons share some viewpoints of the right ones and vice versa. It kills debates and foster an unhealthy focus on following the party line - and that is a real danger to the democratic idea.
IMHO of course. Demonize people if that's what you want.
when his opinion is "sue them" and "threaten to jail them" then yes, he is trying to shut them down.
as usual, youre full of shit.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Fair is only fair., even worthless trolls crave legitimacy. Propose: new "Verified Trailer Trash" tag
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
> Are you sure it isn't wasn't because he changed his information within his profile?
> "Changing information, such as your profile image, can cause Twitter to remove the badge,"
Usually the person making a claim like that puts out evidence in support of it.
Usually.
The loudest public voices of the anti vaccination movement are extreme left Hollywood actors.
Moon landings are non political. Cite please.
Flat earth cite please.
Creationists: are we counting your Islamic friends who voted heavily for Obama and Clinton as conservatives? This one should make your head explode as there's no more conservative culture than Islam.
Pizza gate... as if your politicians in DC aren't fucking little girls (and boys too)? Really? Seriously, you believe that?
Now that I've written all this it occurs to me you're just trolling so I won't comment on the rest of your silliness.
Congrats on successful troll.
The political demographics seem to support the notion that urban-dwellers are more liberal, while non-urban dwellers are more conservative. Does this mean that the future of the human race is to live in dense urban environments with liberal politics? I hope not, because that isn't an environment that I would like to live in, and one that I have specifically chosen NOT to live in. Is my choice invalid?
Yes, your choice is invalid, because for the human species to have a future, we need to preserve and rebuild our natural environment. In the long term everybody needs to move to cities. And empirically this is what is happening on a global scale, and this is the only trend that currently gives me hope that the political nightmare will be over one day.
In the long term everybody needs to move to cities
That's one option, another option is for enough people to die and/or not be born.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
>Go pay attention to what's happening to youtube right now, and sites like the WSJ, gizmodo, et.al., directly attacking the source of revenue for people because they don't "conform" to their ideology.
if i may: what are you referring to? i genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, but if there is something going on, i would like to be aware of it
Really getting tired of those supporting right wing causes lying out their asses.
Trust in the press in "most of the west" is not at the levels you suggest. Gallup and other independent agencies run polls regularly and have found the opposite:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195...
http://www.journalism.org/2016...
https://www.americanpressinsti...
Only members of a single party severely distrust the media and only because they are commanded to distrust the media by their party. That doesn't mean the press is un-trustworthy or a liberal bias, just that the conservatives regularly attack the media for reporting on just about anything that disagrees with what they are saying and their followers agree with the distrust without any effort of critical thought or even benefit of the doubt. When a story that has absolutely no political slant and only presents facts can be labeled as "liberal", as has been the case more than a dozen times in the last two years, it's pretty obvious that the right are not fighting any form of political slant but reality itself.
It's a matter of a significant portion of the population putting their party before fact or country and are willing to lie to support their causes and nothing to do with their opponents conspiring against them.
I should also mention that a particular country in the news a lot as of late has regularly used it's news agencies and intelligence agencies to also spread distrust of the US media.
https://www.rt.com/usa/340124-...
Oh boy. Look the guy who can't dispute anything, stomps his feet and throws a temper tantrum.
Om, nomnomnom...
if i may: what are you referring to? i genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, but if there is something going on, i would like to be aware of it
This should bring you up to speed.
Om, nomnomnom...
You should keep looking, you glossed over most of what it's saying. In particular with polling of non-disclosed political affiliation in media trust. Including things like this. While gallup and journalism's numbers are interesting, it also makes my point correct. Perhaps you should also ask why the trust in the media is in decline...everywhere.
Om, nomnomnom...
If you want to see what a real press ban looks like, you'd better start here. Because the Obama administration actually *did* ban the press on multiple occasions. In fact it was so bad at one point that multiple press agencies and reporters published a letter over it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Sure: half of it's sideways, it's compressed all to fuck, the aspect ratio on the left half has been mangled and the composition on the right panel sucks. Visually it's a total disaster.
You should probably tell the ones protesting free speech then to figure out how to hold a camera then. That is if they don't beat you, smash your camera, and you spend a day or two in hospital recovering from your "run-in" with them.
Om, nomnomnom...
nd the fact that a very, very small subset of (loud) college "kids" do things in the name of liberalism isn't a reflection on classic liberal values.
Except that those "loud kids" are making these things happen. In fact, it's bad enough that those kids successfully caused such a large drop in new enrollments at several universities(like Mizzou), that those universities had to cut back on programs and had a budget shortfall of $25m+. Hate to break it to you, but if that small group is having that large of an impact? There's something fundamentally wrong. Especially when universities have to come out and state that "they exist to challenge ideas" and then are attacked by the media, members of government, and professors. Because they see that "challenging ideas" is the equivalent of extremism.
You want to see how the end of the road looks? Take a look in the UK. Where universities ban gays, feminists and conservatives from speaking on campus because they don't hold the right opinions these days.
Om, nomnomnom...
You mean where the Obama administration actually did? Or the part where "suing" and "threaten to jail them" for breaking actual laws? Take your pick, because as usual you have no grasp on what you're talking about.
Om, nomnomnom...
Take your pick, because as usual you have no grasp on what you're talking about.
Really? Trump's quotes are pretty clear:
The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws? https://t.co/QIqLgvYLLi
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017
"You see, with me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people but I'm not taking money. I'm not taking their money," Trump said on Friday. "We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before." Trump in Fort Worth, Texas, 2/16
Now maybe this is confusing:
It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2016
Except, then you realize that Trump's the confused one, as the Media doesn't get to do that. In fact, it tends to be Trump who says false things with some regularity. The landslide election, the eavesdropping, the unreported terror attacks, and more.
Sorry, but Trump's a practitioner of considerable effort to shut down and silence his critics.
As much I disliked what happened in Berkeley with the protests the most annoying part of them for me is now we have idiots like you creating massive generalizations based off a single event.
If the entire Left is now against free speech because of this where does that put the right with all those photos of racist anti Obama banners from tea party rallies? There's photos from hundreds of rallies featuring these things. Is the Right a movement entirely composed of racists because of those?
Since you're a twit I'll answer for you, it puts the Right no where because holding an entire political ideology responsible for the actions of a few is something only stupid people do.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I read through each pretty thoroughly. The only numbers anywhere close to yours are for a single party affiliation, as I said.
Meanwhile, the two links you posted are referencing the same survey that includes a huge number of countries, including China, which has an incredibly amount of censorship so of course no on trusts the media there and India which has an absolute joke of a 4th estate, but also a pretty low sampling rate. That said, neither article presents any numbers for polls of people's trust of the media. The second says "government and media", which in my opinion is an odd thing to lump together when asking people since one would most likely cause distaste of the other.
Sort of like asking someone "Do you like the taste of cat urine and chocolate together?" The person answering would most likely love chocolate but the mere thought of cat urine would make them say no. It's called asking a loaded question. The person asking it phrases the question or qualifies it for what they want the answer to be.
That said, the company those numbers are originating from for both articles is a marketing firm (Edelman) which is not exactly a very trustworthy source either, is it?
"Edelman is a leading global communications marketing firm that partners with many of the world’s largest and emerging businesses and organizations, helping them evolve, promote and protect their brands and reputations. Edelman owns specialty firms Edelman Intelligence (research) and United Entertainment Group (entertainment, sports, experiential), a joint venture with United Talent Agency."
You want to see how the end of the road looks? Take a look in the UK.
I don't even get your point. Because there are "liberal" college students acting like 'tards ... what? We have to vote Trump, call all media fake, embrace alternative facts, and drop our liberal values?
The fact that those kids are idiots doesn't do anything to shake my values. You see, I don't need to be one extreme or the other, and I'm capable of picking my beliefs from all over the spectrum.
That's just, like, your alternative facts, man!
That kind of thing has happened in more places than just Berkeley -- for example, at Middlebury College, where leftist thugs sent a liberal professor to the hospital because she helped protect an invited speaker from assault -- even when she knew she disagreed with the speaker.
And in every case, leftist intolerance, calls for violence, and outright violence have been tolerated by staff and faculty who are almost uniformly liberal.
How many riots did conservatives start during Obama's time in office? If they were so much more violent than leftists have been in the first two months of Trump's presidency, surely you can find plenty of examples.
She lost by 10 states! Say itnwith me now, popular vote doesn't matter
Anything that reduces the amount of advertising I see can't be all bad...
Conservatives are simply upset at the reality of modern life and society. They cling to certainty and favor regressing back to what they know over adapting to new situations and analyzing how to succeed in a changing environment. Assuming the world is going to play along and stop progressing just because it makes you more comfortable is childish and delusional.
Because if you're not a liberal you're clearly a conservative. THIS is why you lost. The party of open-mindedness doesn't realize there is a large moderate group of independents that don't subscribe to the zealots on either side.
Just weeks before the election camp Hillary was talking shit to camps trump and bernie - that too bad - that's how the system works ( both super delegates and electoral) and too bad Hillary is just so pro at it.
Now it's been this "but the popular vote" sore loser crap since. Which we actually expected from camp trump. What a bizarre world.
Hense my reference to the hundreds of tea party rallies.
I guess i should have been clearer as I shouldnt expect critical thinking from the types who want to brand half the population for the actions of a few.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Many of the people carrying those signs were leftists trying to make the tea party look bad, and if you want to point to stupid signs at rallies, the "Chimpy McBushitler" squad from the mid-2000s would like to have a word with you.
Tea Party people have never rioted, never forced invited speakers away from public events, and never suppressed speech that they disagree with as "violence". Leftists have done all of these things in multiple places. It's either ignorant or dishonest to suggest that the riot at Berkeley was an isolated event.
They are more legitimate than ever. But when you are living in a lie, you have to resolve the cognitive dissonance somehow, so discounting the media is one way of doing that.
The truth cares nothing about blue check marks.
Since you have no interest in what I'm saying and have every interest in turning this into a "my political sports team is duh best!" discussion I shall leave you with...
EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS RIGHT! Your shit not only doesnt smell but it also smells like roses at the same time. Anything the RIght does that's bad is really done by Left wing infiltrators because how could the Right do anything wrong? They're who you vote for! Your demonizing of those with contrary political views is 200 percent constructive and is not in any way, shape, or form reflective of our current dysfunctional political climate.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Interestingly enough, Scott Adams does not indicate that he accepts this explanation as being true.
But he doesn't indicate that he is skeptical about this explanation, either.
Since he didn't say something like "Twitter explained that iit was due to an error, and I believe them." and he easily could have, I'm going to go with the first interpretation.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
And still idiots try and try to moderate out the facts. Like I'm about to run out of copy/paste any time soon.
"'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter... for rightards."
You know... Like liberal, feminist, socialist, immigrant, Muslim, Jew, black, literate, educated... and all other dog whistling insults that rightard cowards are using cause they don't have the balls to say what they really mean.
Sad.
In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy (see also Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy), said:[19][20]
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni99er, ni99er, ni99er."
By 1968, you can't say "ni99er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.
You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that.
But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni99er, ni99er."
-Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Ask Cliven Bundy and family.
Because you apparently have no interest in defending either what you said or what your fellow lefties do, I'll just say that you provide support for my hypothesis that if not fit double standards, lefties would have no standards at all.
I never defended stupid signs at tea party rallies, or crimes like the Trump rally-goer who punched a protester being escorted from the venue. I only pointed out that leftist misbehavior is at least bad.
An educated bias is a bias that went to schools and colleges and universities and learned what "critical thinking" is and why you don't call prejudice or gut instincts or false equivalencies or ad hominem attacks or fear-mongering or bloody shirts or xenophobia or gerrymandering any kind of "common sense". And if you don't know what any of those terms mean you have proven my point. Many zealots still call it 'commie-brainwashing', but they don't know the difference either!
I went to university in California in the early 90s and one of my professors was a dyed-in-the-wool, Orange County Republican who thought Nixon was run out on a rail by Democrats and the media. He spent his life revising the history of Watergate for his classes. When I pointed out to him in class that Nixon was actually an unindicted co-conspirator and caught 'redhanded' discussing hush money for Hunt he tried to fail my final exam, but still had to pass me with a B.
My point is that even with a so-called 'sheepskin', bias more often than not arises from those who refuse, for their own selfish reasons, to admit the truth. And in this latter part of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is the rabid right-wing of this country who continue to ignore reality to get their own way; common-sense hah!
Of course if you get your news from communist propaganda, "media matters", you will have a negative opinion. How about you show some facts other than commie rags...
Coulter: Meticulously backs her statements with facts. If she is missing some or incorrect how about showing which. If her position is factual and you are made uncomfortable, that is your own cognitive dissonance to deal with.
I do have to laugh about your claim that Levin is of the Obama is a "secret" Muslim crowd. Funny that he has helped Muslims far more than any other President in history, including illegal actions such as having the US Department of Education create full plans for schools promoting Muslim beliefs. There is no secret that Obama is pro-Muslim, the only part to question is the motivation for his actions.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As much I disliked what happened in Berkeley with the protests the most annoying part of them for me is now we have idiots like you creating massive generalizations based off a single event.
Single event? You're either naive or an idiot, I'm not sure which. Multiple cases of this not only in the US, but in Canada, and in EU countries with self-identifying leftists being violent. Violently attacking people for not having the "right kind of opinions" and so on.
If the entire Left is now against free speech because of this where does that put the right with all those photos of racist anti Obama banners from tea party rallies? There's photos from hundreds of rallies featuring these things. Is the Right a movement entirely composed of racists because of those?
No, it means that the right is more tolerant of views that other people express and are unwilling to suppress them because the suppression of speech hurts everyone. That, and the vast majority of people on the right or lean-right, haven't drank the kool-aid of collectivism. Which is what you're expressing right now, by trying to "lump some people, with everyone else."
Since you're a twit I'll answer for you, it puts the Right no where because holding an entire political ideology responsible for the actions of a few is something only stupid people do.
Thanks for showing everyone what a collectivist looks like, and when you're so invested in identity politics that even other people on the left are saying "the left has an extremism problem" that you attack those sane voices, which of course pushes them to the right. You figure out why the DNC is spiraling down the drain right now? No? I'll give you a hint, it's because they just voted another person in who supports that same type of garbage.
Om, nomnomnom...
I don't even get your point. Because there are "liberal" college students acting like 'tards ... what? We have to vote Trump, call all media fake, embrace alternative facts, and drop our liberal values?
And how are you enjoying that moral outrage when it turns around and actually impacts your life? You think it doesn't also hurt companies when they jump into politics too? Ask Kelloggs.
The fact that those kids are idiots doesn't do anything to shake my values.
See that sentence? Now, go look at the latest "insert moral outrage" that just got your favorite thing pulled. Because they are doing things that shake your values, you just aren't paying attention.
Om, nomnomnom...
you just aren't paying attention
Ya I guess not, as indicated by the several posts I've made on the topic. I'm clearly not thinking about it at all. Good thing society has people like you otherwise everyone, including myself, would continue to wander around in a moral haze, oblivious.
Narcissism's a bitch.